Skip to main content
Glama

Dayze — Life Context

Save Day Score

save_day_score

Save the user's check-in for a date (default today). score 1-10 is required for a new day; mood, energy, focus, social 1-5; highlight, lowlight, gratitude, tags. Fields left out keep what that day already has. ($0.10; API key required)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "save_day_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD. Default today.
moodNoMood rating from 1 to 5, e.g. 4.
tagsNoTags, e.g. ["work"].
focusNoFocus rating from 1 to 5, e.g. 4.
scoreNoDay score from 1 to 10, e.g. 7.
energyNoEnergy rating from 1 to 5, e.g. 4.
socialNoSocial rating from 1 to 5, e.g. 3.
lowlightNoHardest moment of the day, e.g. Missed the train.
gratitudeNoShort gratitude line for the day, e.g. Coffee with Mia.
highlightNoBest moment of the day, e.g. Finished the draft.
request_idNoClient idempotency key (retries return original result).
idempotency_keyNoAlias for request_id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreNo
accountNoThe Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
messageNo
provenanceNoWhich connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed10 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / energy / description
      Added value: +"Energy rating from 1 to 5, e.g. 4."
    • addedInput schema / properties / focus / description
      Added value: +"Focus rating from 1 to 5, e.g. 4."
    • addedInput schema / properties / gratitude / description
      Added value: +"Short gratitude line for the day, e.g. Coffee with Mia."
    • addedInput schema / properties / highlight / description
      Added value: +"Best moment of the day, e.g. Finished the draft."
    • addedInput schema / properties / lowlight / description
      Added value: +"Hardest moment of the day, e.g. Missed the train."
    • addedInput schema / properties / mood / description
      Added value: +"Mood rating from 1 to 5, e.g. 4."
    • addedInput schema / properties / score / description
      Added value: +"Day score from 1 to 10, e.g. 7."
    • addedInput schema / properties / social / description
      Added value: +"Social rating from 1 to 5, e.g. 3."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags / description
      Added value: +"Tags, e.g. [\"work\"]."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags / items / description
      Added value: +"Tag, e.g. work."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds merge semantics ('fields left out keep what that day already has'), a $0.10 cost, and an API-key requirement. However, it omits the two idempotency parameters (request_id / idempotency_key) that matter for a paid write operation involving retries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense clauses: purpose and default first, field constraints second, merge semantics third, with cost/auth compactly parenthesized at the end. No filler sentences and nothing important buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Twelve parameters with a full schema and an output schema mean the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers defaults, conditional requiredness, and merge behavior well. The one material gap is the unmentioned idempotency/request-id mechanism for retries on a billed write.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: score is conditionally required only for a new day, and unset fields are preserved rather than cleared. The cost/auth parenthetical also clarifies operational constraints not visible in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Save the user's check-in for a date' with the payload fields named. It conveys the upsert nature of a day-score record, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like save_day_note or get_day_scores.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear conditions: date defaults to today, score is required for a new day, and omitted fields retain existing values — which tells the agent this is safe to call for partial updates. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.